Latest Articles
Siyasat Arabiya is a bi-monthly peer reviewed academic journal published by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies (ISSN 2307-1583/E-ISSN 2789-326X) dedicated to political science, international relations, and strategic affairs.
Mercantilism presents itself as an explicit model of economic nationalism. Since its early application to the new protectionism, economic nationalism has theorized that economic activities must be subject to the maximization of the power of the state. This article aims to explain economic nationalism and track the evolution of its application, primarily to analyse its viability as a theory in the midst of economic globalization which threatens to bring about the de facto end of the state's interventionist economic system in a borderless world. As the article refutes the premise that globalization and nationalism are two sides of the same coin, national economies continue to be driven by disguised new forms of economic nationalism.
This paper provides descriptive statistics on Arab public opinion towards the US over time, using the Arab Opinion Index from 2011 to 2019/2020. While Obama attempted to let pragmatism lead his foreign policy, Trump's policies upended the status quo of many issues, hastening conflict in the Arab region. How did this impact Arab opinion of the US and its foreign policy? Did these rapid shifts affect Arab citizens in their view of the US? Or does the Arab citizen find the content of this foreign policy indistinguishable from before, albeit with a different tone? The paper demonstrates that Trump's policies, which confused many international organizations and alliances, and caused chaos, especially in the Arab world, led to a rapid decline in the positive evaluation of the United States in the Arab world.
International protection for internally displaced persons, who far exceed the number of refugees, has become a major issue in recent years. This is reflected in the international community's search for solutions, by providing them with internal humanitarian assistance so that they do not have to seek help beyond the borders of their states, affirming their right to remain in their country in security and dignity and not to become refugees. However, reality has shown that the international community's attention to the protection of internally displaced persons is not so much a humanitarian consideration as it is an inevitable consequence of state reservations to welcome refugees on their territory. European states in particular have attached urgency to protecting internally displaced persons arbitrarily to justify the closure of their borders to refugees.
International protection for internally displaced persons, who far exceed the number of refugees, has become a major issue in recent years. This is reflected in the international community's search for solutions, by providing them with internal humanitarian assistance so that they do not have to seek help beyond the borders of their states, affirming their right to remain in their country in security and dignity and not to become refugees. However, reality has shown that the international community's attention to the protection of internally displaced persons is not so much a humanitarian consideration as it is an inevitable consequence of state reservations to welcome refugees on their territory. European states in particular have attached urgency to protecting internally displaced persons arbitrarily to justify the closure of their borders to refugees.
This study examines US foreign policy and the changes that occurred under former President Donald Trump, compared to other post-Cold War administrations, assessing their impact on the future of US hegemony and the liberal international system, with projections for current president Joe Biden's rule. Two main questions arise: First, what foreign policies did Trump pursue? Second, what impact do they have on the future of US hegemony and the liberal international order? The analysis studies the concept of hegemony in international relations theory. It concludes with three possible scenarios awaiting the future of US hegemony under Biden's rule, with his administration likely to move between partial reform and catastrophic failure.
This study aims to define the interests and goals of the United States in the Arab region by answering two main questions: how does the Obama administration differ from its predecessors in view of its promises of change, particularly following the tragic transformations raging in the Arab region at present? And to what extent does the strategy of this administration reflect its public diplomacy regarding democracy, freedom, and justice in the region? The study explains how Obama raised the ceiling of expectations when he did not limit his promises to a change in American policy only, but included putting an end to the mentality that had pushed the United States into war. Despite the difference in style and method between the Obama and Bush Junior administrations, the overall goals and the regional strategy can be summarized in terms of three key interests: the priority of ensuring free access to energy supplies in the region; maintaining American supremacy over all other global powers; and the containment of all Arab objections to ensure the dominance of the US strategic agenda in the Arab region, including the guarantee of Israel's security.
Studies and Analytical Papers
0
29
71
The Iranian Presidency in light of the Ahmadinejad Experience
2013-03-01
This study deals with the Iranian presidency from two main angles: the first is related to the theoretical and historical givens that surround the foundation of the office of president and its practices in the regime of the Islamic Republic.
Forty days after the outbreak of the Yemeni Revolution, on March 21, 2011, General Ali Mohsen Saleh al-Ahmar (commander of the northwestern military district and the 1st Armoured Division), Major General Mohammad Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar (commander of the eastern military district) and a number of commanders of other military units declared their support for the revolution. The Yemeni army divided into two: “supporters of the revolution army” and the “family army,” according to the characterization by the forces of the revolution. This development exposed to the public the hidden divisions within the structure of the Yemeni Army, taking it to the point of no return. The capital Sanaa and some other Yemeni cities witnessed limited armed confrontations between the two armies and between the militias supported by them. That is why the executive mechanism of The Gulf Cooperation Council’s initiative (the Gulf Initiative) included a special term for uniting the army, restructuring it, and ending its division. With the split as its background and the Gulf Initiative as its point of departure, this paper aims to show what was achieved in terms of restructuring the army. It describes the course of this restructuring operation, the difficulties it entailed, the tasks that have not yet been accomplished, as well as its impact on national unity, social integration, and confidence-building between the parties participating in the national dialogue conference.
Studies and Analytical Papers
0
47
44
The Problematic of Parliamentary Monarchy in the Moroccan Constitutional System
2016-05-01
The referendum on the new Moroccan constitution in July 2011, which varied readings and perspectives around it, between supporters of the methodology and implications brought as necessary step towards democracy.
Studies and Analytical Papers
1
41
36
The Tunisian Tamarod Movement: Limits and Prospects
2013-09-01
The Tunisian Tamarod (Rebellion) Movement replicated the experience of the Egyptian movement of the same name after the latter’s success in changing the nation’s head of state. The study analyzes the factors that led to the emergence of the Tunisian Tamarod Movement, such as the difficulties facing the transitional process, the slow pace of reforms, and the failure to achieve the goals of the revolution. This long list of grievances ranges from the failure to create jobs and provide justice for victims of injustice, to the continuation of widespread poverty and unemployment in the cities, and the problematic struggle for influence instead of power sharing leading to polarization not only between al-Nahda Party and the Nidaa Tounes Movement, but also between the ruling coalition and the opposition. The study explores the most important commonalities and differences between the Egyptian Tamarod Movement and the Tunisian Tamarod Movement, wondering whether the latter can change from a protest phenomenon to a force for change, and what its future holds in light of the new developments in the urban and political scene in Tunisia today.